ArticleDer Nervenarzt2008
[The Erlangen examination. An alternative to multiple choice testing for German neurology students].
Article in Der Nervenarzt, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Effects of response format on achievement and aptitude assessment results: multi-level random effects meta-analyses.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith the latest revision of the German Medical Licensing Regulation in 2002, educating faculties gained more freedom in the organisation and assessment of trainees. The Erlangen Neurological Exam Structured (ERNEST) is an alternative for assessing competency in clinical knowledge at the end of the neurological general education. The answers must be given in written, short essay format.
methodThe students (mostly 5th year of medical education) underwent the ERNEST including eight sections with ten to 15 questions each and the MC examination as had been applied earlier. The results were given in percentage scores. The examination was evaluated by a questionnaire using Likert scales.
resultsA total of 128 students (81 women, 47 men) with a mean age of 25.3 years (range 22-33) completed their initial training by the exam. The mean score was 69.6% in the ERNEST and 73.4% in the MC part (P<0.001). Of the students 12.5% in ERNEST and 11.7% in the MC (nonsignificant) failed to reach the projected score of 60% to pass the exam. Correlation between the ERNEST and MC results was significant, with r=0.784 (Pearson's coefficient, P<0.001). The students evaluated the aspects innovation, length, format, clarity of the tasks, closeness to reality, and compatibility with general physician's practice as predominantly positive.
conclusionThe ERNEST is a viable alternative form of assessment as compared to the conventional MC exam. The basic quantitative parameters of the assessment comply with the requirements of medical assessments. The students evaluated ERNEST as mainly positive.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18330540What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.